(02-14-2018 01:54 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: UCSD isn't the problem. It's Bakersfield. I know I'm not the only one disgusted with how this went down

probably because bsc has sac state on lockdown...ideally sac state would go to the bwc non-football...bsc football only...

unfortunately csub was the only csu available to keep the balance in the bwc between the uc's & csu's...not an ideal scenario...invite through association...

the bwc was more interested in keeping the peace between the uc's & csu's than evaluating by what a school brings to the table...

the bsc just wants to hoard western schools to hurt or possibly get rid of the wac...

exactly. after being oh so close to getting boise and sdsu back in 2013- and improving its profile as a conference - the bw got lazy and settled for ucsd and csub without receiving any concessions or promises. there is no benefit to bringing in csub, who wasn't even wanted for the longest time, and now that slams the door on ever getting back any former members.

Probably an exit fee of around $500K. But UND showed that may not be necessary, just sufficient notice of over one year. So in theory Sac State could pull it's Olympics from the Big Sky and put them in the Big West, say in 2019 or 2020 if they gave notice this spring without incurring an exit fee.

These things are governed by conference by-laws. If you follow those, no politicking matters.

(02-14-2018 12:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: Probably an exit fee of around $500K. But UND showed that may not be necessary, just sufficient notice of over one year. So in theory Sac State could pull it's Olympics from the Big Sky and put them in the Big West, say in 2019 or 2020 if they gave notice this spring without incurring an exit fee.

These things are governed by conference by-laws. If you follow those, no politicking matters.

That assumes of course:

1) Sac State administration wants to be in the Big West
2) They could arrange a football home (or drop football)

(02-14-2018 12:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: Probably an exit fee of around $500K. But UND showed that may not be necessary, just sufficient notice of over one year. So in theory Sac State could pull it's Olympics from the Big Sky and put them in the Big West, say in 2019 or 2020 if they gave notice this spring without incurring an exit fee.

These things are governed by conference by-laws. If you follow those, no politicking matters.

That assumes of course:

1) Sac State administration wants to be in the Big West
2) They could arrange a football home (or drop football)

It’s very hard to find a home for football teams out west in FCS. Truthfully, the only real option for scholarship football is the Big Sky, and I can see why Sacramento State wants to leave football in there & pull out Olympic sports. The only other option is to put football in the non-scholarship Pioneer League, but unlike the USD Torerros, Sacramento State is a state institution, not private, and probably could not justify the expense of being in the Pioneer League, so basically, it’s Big Sky or bust.

(02-14-2018 12:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: Probably an exit fee of around $500K. But UND showed that may not be necessary, just sufficient notice of over one year. So in theory Sac State could pull it's Olympics from the Big Sky and put them in the Big West, say in 2019 or 2020 if they gave notice this spring without incurring an exit fee.

These things are governed by conference by-laws. If you follow those, no politicking matters.

That assumes of course:

1) Sac State administration wants to be in the Big West
2) They could arrange a football home (or drop football)

It’s very hard to find a home for football teams out west in FCS. Truthfully, the only real option for scholarship football is the Big Sky, and I can see why Sacramento State wants to leave football in there & pull out Olympic sports. The only other option is to put football in the non-scholarship Pioneer League, but unlike the USD Torerros, Sacramento State is a state institution, not private, and probably could not justify the expense of being in the Pioneer League, so basically, it’s Big Sky or bust.

The cost of Pioneer League football travel is far less than the cost of 63 football scholarships. And if you don't have the 63 football scholarships, then you also need fewer women's scholarships to comply with Title IX, so a Pioneer League football team is probably saving its school the annual cost of more than 100 athletic scholarships as compared to a school that is fielding a full-scholarship FCS team.

basically start big west conference football again...unfortunately the big sky conference won't let that happen...they're too busy binging on western schools for football and membership...if the bsc is willing to purging some schools then bwc football lives again...

I'd think it would be in the Big Sky's interest to get about 14 FCS scholarship programs playing in the western states so that they could have two autobids. The WAC could be the 2nd league and take on Northern Arizona, Southern Utah, and Sacramento St as full members and Cal Poly and UC Davis as affiliates. San Diego (w/ schollies) could be another affiliate and Azusa Pacific the last full member.

(02-14-2018 01:54 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: UCSD isn't the problem. It's Bakersfield. I know I'm not the only one disgusted with how this went down

I can see a certain appeal to how the Big West is shaping up. UCSD gives them a fourth AAU member UC campus. If UCR can ever get its **** together the Big West will have half the AAU members in the state of CA (the others being the four Pac-12 schools plus Caltech.) And in Fullerton, Northridge, and Long Beach they have the three highest-enrollment CSU campuses. Cal Poly SLO doesn't fit in with its high-enrollment siblings, but it probably has the best reputation for college town living. They all seem to bring something to the table, either prestige or size or a cool college vibe.

And then there's Bakersfield.

At least if Sacramento State had been the expansion choice it would have fit in with the high-enrollment CSUs. They have the fourth-largest student body if you don't count the FBS-playing MWC schools. They're three times as big as CSU Bakersfield! But I guess Sacramento State has its reasons for staying in the Big Sky.

(02-14-2018 09:14 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: I'd think it would be in the Big Sky's interest to get about 14 FCS scholarship programs playing in the western states so that they could have two autobids. The WAC could be the 2nd league and take on Northern Arizona, Southern Utah, and Sacramento St as full members and Cal Poly and UC Davis as affiliates. San Diego (w/ schollies) could be another affiliate and Azusa Pacific the last full member.

I understand what you're getting at, but it'll be a cold day in Hell before the Big Sky actively helps anybody build a football conference, let alone the WAC.

If the WAC is trying to rehab its image with a football conference, I don't think adding schools like Azusa Pacific is the way to go. Go after the disaffected members of the Southland like SHSU and SFA who want to escape the Houston Baptists and Incarnate Words of the world and create an FCS conference that can be competitive out of the gate. Poach Cal Poly and UC Davis from the Big Sky if they're willing to jump. Poach a couple of other schools in the Texas sphere that are disaffected by recent adds to the Southland like SELA and Central Arkansas, who then keep their Texas recruiting ties while joining a better conference. Maybe that kick-starts UTRGV's desire to field football. Suddenly you have a respectable 7-team football conference without adding any D2 schools. If Sac State thinks it could benefit from a move to another league, all the better.

Of course, there are a ton of moving parts there, and it's an extreme long shot. But if the WAC wants to be taken seriously, building a startup football conference around Azusa Pacific and Tarleton State won't get it done.

Big Sky would be a perfect test case for my two conferences in one mega conference idea.

Two leagues for NCAA purposes with one commissioner and one league office. Each division it's own NCAA conference in football, basketball and other sports with high participation. BS North might take men's golf and BS South softball and such.

As long as each division has enough members and they play full round robin in the division in football and either a double round robin or 14 games within division in basketball they could be two different leagues with an agreement to share revenue and marketing and use the same administrative staff.

(02-15-2018 02:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote: Big Sky would be a perfect test case for my two conferences in one mega conference idea.

Two leagues for NCAA purposes with one commissioner and one league office. Each division it's own NCAA conference in football, basketball and other sports with high participation. BS North might take men's golf and BS South softball and such.

As long as each division has enough members and they play full round robin in the division in football and either a double round robin or 14 games within division in basketball they could be two different leagues with an agreement to share revenue and marketing and use the same administrative staff.

Could just have any two existing leagues in the same geographic area share one commissioner, one staff, one office building, especially leagues that don't have the gross revenue of the wealthiest conferences. America East and the Northeast Conference, just as one example.

(02-14-2018 01:54 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: UCSD isn't the problem. It's Bakersfield. I know I'm not the only one disgusted with how this went down

I can see a certain appeal to how the Big West is shaping up. UCSD gives them a fourth AAU member UC campus. If UCR can ever get its **** together the Big West will have half the AAU members in the state of CA (the others being the four Pac-12 schools plus Caltech.) And in Fullerton, Northridge, and Long Beach they have the three highest-enrollment CSU campuses. Cal Poly SLO doesn't fit in with its high-enrollment siblings, but it probably has the best reputation for college town living. They all seem to bring something to the table, either prestige or size or a cool college vibe.

And then there's Bakersfield.

At least if Sacramento State had been the expansion choice it would have fit in with the high-enrollment CSUs. They have the fourth-largest student body if you don't count the FBS-playing MWC schools. They're three times as big as CSU Bakersfield! But I guess Sacramento State has its reasons for staying in the Big Sky.

Here's the problem - no additional representation outside CA. No motivation to invest in basketball or other sports. No differentiation. There's still the bus league stigma. you miss out by staying in a bubble. Academics? Boise bought their brief membership in 2012 and theirs don't compare.

Politics was the reason Bakersfield got in. Not their NIT run in 2017, not their academics. They used UCSD's desperation against them. They were shunned for over a decade, nothing else has made them appealing. It's a victory for Bakersfield only, they bring nothing useful to the table and get all the travel savings benefits.

The Big West of 1990 with UNLV, NMSU and Utah State was the perfect setup. Still primarily CA based, but a presence in multiple states. And capable of producing at-large bids.

The Big West of 2020 is anything but ideal. 10 of 11 members in one state means there is no growth, no regional exposure outside said state. It's sad, really.

(02-14-2018 01:54 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: UCSD isn't the problem. It's Bakersfield. I know I'm not the only one disgusted with how this went down

I can see a certain appeal to how the Big West is shaping up. UCSD gives them a fourth AAU member UC campus. If UCR can ever get its **** together the Big West will have half the AAU members in the state of CA (the others being the four Pac-12 schools plus Caltech.) And in Fullerton, Northridge, and Long Beach they have the three highest-enrollment CSU campuses. Cal Poly SLO doesn't fit in with its high-enrollment siblings, but it probably has the best reputation for college town living. They all seem to bring something to the table, either prestige or size or a cool college vibe.

And then there's Bakersfield.

At least if Sacramento State had been the expansion choice it would have fit in with the high-enrollment CSUs. They have the fourth-largest student body if you don't count the FBS-playing MWC schools. They're three times as big as CSU Bakersfield! But I guess Sacramento State has its reasons for staying in the Big Sky.

Here's the problem - no additional representation outside CA. No motivation to invest in basketball or other sports. No differentiation. There's still the bus league stigma. you miss out by staying in a bubble. Academics? Boise bought their brief membership in 2012 and theirs don't compare.

Politics was the reason Bakersfield got in. Not their NIT run in 2017, not their academics. They used UCSD's desperation against them. They were shunned for over a decade, nothing else has made them appealing. It's a victory for Bakersfield only, they bring nothing useful to the table and get all the travel savings benefits.

The Big West of 1990 with UNLV, NMSU and Utah State was the perfect setup. Still primarily CA based, but a presence in multiple states. And capable of producing at-large bids.

The Big West of 2020 is anything but ideal. 10 of 11 members in one state means there is no growth, no regional exposure outside said state. It's sad, really.

If the split the state idea of like 5-6 different states that was proposed a few years back were in effect, would you have the same thoughts? Because really, a conference like the OVC is a bus-only league. If you overlay California over Missouri and Tennessee, you'll see that it's the same distances for the OVC as the SoCal Big West schools.

(02-14-2018 01:54 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: UCSD isn't the problem. It's Bakersfield. I know I'm not the only one disgusted with how this went down

I can see a certain appeal to how the Big West is shaping up. UCSD gives them a fourth AAU member UC campus. If UCR can ever get its **** together the Big West will have half the AAU members in the state of CA (the others being the four Pac-12 schools plus Caltech.) And in Fullerton, Northridge, and Long Beach they have the three highest-enrollment CSU campuses. Cal Poly SLO doesn't fit in with its high-enrollment siblings, but it probably has the best reputation for college town living. They all seem to bring something to the table, either prestige or size or a cool college vibe.

And then there's Bakersfield.

At least if Sacramento State had been the expansion choice it would have fit in with the high-enrollment CSUs. They have the fourth-largest student body if you don't count the FBS-playing MWC schools. They're three times as big as CSU Bakersfield! But I guess Sacramento State has its reasons for staying in the Big Sky.

Here's the problem - no additional representation outside CA. No motivation to invest in basketball or other sports. No differentiation. There's still the bus league stigma. you miss out by staying in a bubble. Academics? Boise bought their brief membership in 2012 and theirs don't compare.

Politics was the reason Bakersfield got in. Not their NIT run in 2017, not their academics. They used UCSD's desperation against them. They were shunned for over a decade, nothing else has made them appealing. It's a victory for Bakersfield only, they bring nothing useful to the table and get all the travel savings benefits.

The Big West of 1990 with UNLV, NMSU and Utah State was the perfect setup. Still primarily CA based, but a presence in multiple states. And capable of producing at-large bids.

The Big West of 2020 is anything but ideal. 10 of 11 members in one state means there is no growth, no regional exposure outside said state. It's sad, really.

If the split the state idea of like 5-6 different states that was proposed a few years back were in effect, would you have the same thoughts? Because really, a conference like the OVC is a bus-only league. If you overlay California over Missouri and Tennessee, you'll see that it's the same distances for the OVC as the SoCal Big West schools.

Just my $0.02. YMMV

Yes I would have the same thoughts. La Jolla, Irvine, Fullerton, Long Beach, Riverside and Northridge are all less than 150 miles apart from each other. La Jolla to Santa Barbara is less than 250 miles. California splitting into multiple states won't change that.

(02-14-2018 01:54 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: UCSD isn't the problem. It's Bakersfield. I know I'm not the only one disgusted with how this went down

I can see a certain appeal to how the Big West is shaping up. UCSD gives them a fourth AAU member UC campus. If UCR can ever get its **** together the Big West will have half the AAU members in the state of CA (the others being the four Pac-12 schools plus Caltech.) And in Fullerton, Northridge, and Long Beach they have the three highest-enrollment CSU campuses. Cal Poly SLO doesn't fit in with its high-enrollment siblings, but it probably has the best reputation for college town living. They all seem to bring something to the table, either prestige or size or a cool college vibe.

And then there's Bakersfield.

At least if Sacramento State had been the expansion choice it would have fit in with the high-enrollment CSUs. They have the fourth-largest student body if you don't count the FBS-playing MWC schools. They're three times as big as CSU Bakersfield! But I guess Sacramento State has its reasons for staying in the Big Sky.

Here's the problem - no additional representation outside CA. No motivation to invest in basketball or other sports. No differentiation. There's still the bus league stigma. you miss out by staying in a bubble. Academics? Boise bought their brief membership in 2012 and theirs don't compare.

Politics was the reason Bakersfield got in. Not their NIT run in 2017, not their academics. They used UCSD's desperation against them. They were shunned for over a decade, nothing else has made them appealing. It's a victory for Bakersfield only, they bring nothing useful to the table and get all the travel savings benefits.

The Big West of 1990 with UNLV, NMSU and Utah State was the perfect setup. Still primarily CA based, but a presence in multiple states. And capable of producing at-large bids.

The Big West of 2020 is anything but ideal. 10 of 11 members in one state means there is no growth, no regional exposure outside said state. It's sad, really.

If the split the state idea of like 5-6 different states that was proposed a few years back were in effect, would you have the same thoughts? Because really, a conference like the OVC is a bus-only league. If you overlay California over Missouri and Tennessee, you'll see that it's the same distances for the OVC as the SoCal Big West schools.

Just my $0.02. YMMV

Yes I would have the same thoughts. La Jolla, Irvine, Fullerton, Long Beach, Riverside and Northridge are all less than 150 miles apart from each other. La Jolla to Santa Barbara is less than 250 miles. California splitting into multiple states won't change that.

Ok so if you're ok with other leagues like that (being a bus-league, help control costs, etc.) then why not for the Big West?

I tell ya if SB and Fullerton would add FCS football since you both have the stadiums to do so, we'd be there in a heartbeat. But almost 25 years we made the decision to protect football. That's why we joined the Big Sky. Simple as that. Especially since many of the schools around California dropped the sport. Us, Poly and davis have provided blueprint to have football and meet Title IX. A shame too because a FCS football league with SB and Fullerton would be awesome. And I think Northridge wouldn't have dropped the sport either.

(02-15-2018 02:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote: Big Sky would be a perfect test case for my two conferences in one mega conference idea.

Two leagues for NCAA purposes with one commissioner and one league office. Each division it's own NCAA conference in football, basketball and other sports with high participation. BS North might take men's golf and BS South softball and such.

As long as each division has enough members and they play full round robin in the division in football and either a double round robin or 14 games within division in basketball they could be two different leagues with an agreement to share revenue and marketing and use the same administrative staff.

Could just have any two existing leagues in the same geographic area share one commissioner, one staff, one office building, especially leagues that don't have the gross revenue of the wealthiest conferences. America East and the Northeast Conference, just as one example.

Without question. How much you interlock financially is up to the schools. You can solve each others non-conference scheduling issues if you want.

I have said previously that Sun Belt and CUSA would be a good target because of the wide ranging footprints. Being able to negotiate jointly on championship events could be viable. New Orleans and Birmingham could get the conference tournaments in 2020 and swap which league they host the next year type things you just interlock as much as you are comfortable doing.

(02-14-2018 01:54 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: UCSD isn't the problem. It's Bakersfield. I know I'm not the only one disgusted with how this went down

I can see a certain appeal to how the Big West is shaping up. UCSD gives them a fourth AAU member UC campus. If UCR can ever get its **** together the Big West will have half the AAU members in the state of CA (the others being the four Pac-12 schools plus Caltech.) And in Fullerton, Northridge, and Long Beach they have the three highest-enrollment CSU campuses. Cal Poly SLO doesn't fit in with its high-enrollment siblings, but it probably has the best reputation for college town living. They all seem to bring something to the table, either prestige or size or a cool college vibe.

And then there's Bakersfield.

At least if Sacramento State had been the expansion choice it would have fit in with the high-enrollment CSUs. They have the fourth-largest student body if you don't count the FBS-playing MWC schools. They're three times as big as CSU Bakersfield! But I guess Sacramento State has its reasons for staying in the Big Sky.

Here's the problem - no additional representation outside CA. No motivation to invest in basketball or other sports. No differentiation. There's still the bus league stigma. you miss out by staying in a bubble. Academics? Boise bought their brief membership in 2012 and theirs don't compare.

Politics was the reason Bakersfield got in. Not their NIT run in 2017, not their academics. They used UCSD's desperation against them. They were shunned for over a decade, nothing else has made them appealing. It's a victory for Bakersfield only, they bring nothing useful to the table and get all the travel savings benefits.

The Big West of 1990 with UNLV, NMSU and Utah State was the perfect setup. Still primarily CA based, but a presence in multiple states. And capable of producing at-large bids.

The Big West of 2020 is anything but ideal. 10 of 11 members in one state means there is no growth, no regional exposure outside said state. It's sad, really.

Las Vegas, Las Cruces and Logan have a combined population of fewer than a million people. The area from La Jolla to Santa Barbara has roughly 20 million people. I don't see why the CA bubble has to be seen as a bad thing. It's a huge freaking bubble. CA's population is similar to that of Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland combined. A league almost entirely in that footprint doesn't seem odd to me. Why wouldn't it make sense on the opposite coast? Differentiation in the form of being spread out between conferences and divisions of the NCAA hasn't helped the CA public schools capture anyone's interest inside the bubble or outside of it. Maybe it makes sense to get a patrician (UC) vs plebeian (CSU) league going. It's not like anything else has worked.

Edit: Upon closer inspection it appears that the Las Vegas area is bigger than I thought. But those three areas of the country would still account for about 2 million people compared to SoCal's 20 million.

(02-14-2018 12:53 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: Probably an exit fee of around $500K. But UND showed that may not be necessary, just sufficient notice of over one year. So in theory Sac State could pull it's Olympics from the Big Sky and put them in the Big West, say in 2019 or 2020 if they gave notice this spring without incurring an exit fee.

These things are governed by conference by-laws. If you follow those, no politicking matters.

That assumes of course:

1) Sac State administration wants to be in the Big West
2) They could arrange a football home (or drop football)

Football would stay in the Big Sky. UND gave notice they would leave Football, Sac State would not. That is the only difference. The Big Sky would not drop them, as they are part of the California triangle with UC Davis and Cal Poly, both part of the Big West for Olympics. Why would they? This would get the Big Sky down to 10 Olympic schools. Which means a nice round robin in Basketball and Volleyball. It also improves the compactness of the conference.

I did not address the political will or desire of the Sac State administration. That is a separate issue from the mechanics of a move. Right now Sac State's leadership is happy in the Big Sky. I'm sure most alumni and an overwhelming percentage of students would prefer to be in the Big West. Californians (excepting JDGaucho) overwhelmingly prefer to play California schools, who are the only rivals they see or care about.